by David Safier
I read the Star this morning, then I looked at the AZ Republic and East Valley Trib's websites. The only one that has a seriously slanted anti-Obama coverage of last night's health care speech is the Star.
Star, front page, above-the-fold story: "Case for health care tests leadership." It's from the NY Times, and the Star must have an agreement with the Times that it can't put articles on its website. You can read it here.
It's analysis, not reporting. The thrust of the article is, Obama was using the speech as much to jump-start his slipping presidency as to push health care, so he doesn't become Jimmy Carter. It has scarce little information about the speech itself.
Nothing wrong with the analysis as such, though I think it's got a somewhat anti-Obama slant, but if I didn't see the speech and I read this, I would have only gotten a picture of a slipping president trying to get his mojo back.
The other article, inside, is Health-care overhaul: What Obama said, what facts bear out from AP. It's one of those fact checker articles. The conclusion: Obama pretty much fudged the facts.
To recap the Star coverage: Obama is a desperate president trying to claw his way back up by misstating facts in a speech to Congress.
Now the Republic. The front page article is, Obama to Congress: 'Time for bickering is over'. It's AP's overview of the event that goes over the speech and reactions to it. Other articles listed on the website (I haven't seen the paper itself) are Analysis: Obama gambles on making nice, no vetoes and Lawmakers denounce 'You lie' outburst at Obama. The editorial is Eloquent Obama makes partisan call for reform.
And the Trib. Obama: No more 'bickering' on health care, the same AP overview as the Republic with a slightly different headline, Obama tries to build up steam for health plan and FACT CHECK: Obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge, the same AP fact checker in the Star.
More-or-less balanced coverage from the Republic and the Trib, both anchored by a piece of reporting about the speech. Jaundiced analysis of Obama and selective fact checking from the Star.
I conclude that somewhere along the line "we" - that's you and me - came to believe that First Amendment to the US Constitution part of the commonly classified Bill of Rights, which clarified freedom of speech and freedom of the press, automatically presumes in every case the PRESS is dispassionately and neutrally DISCLOSING what is the truth about the subject at hand.
Nothing could be further from reality or the truth. Reporters, journalists, columnists are human and therefore will as a matter of fact pro-offer a perspective a lens through which they see and through which their reporting is filtered.
We have an accounting and responsibility for which "WE: have chosen to be remiss. "WE" have to analyze and choose what we believe it is solely up to each of us.
Respectfully,
Paul F. Miller
http://waterman99.wordpress.com
Posted by: PAUL F. MILLER | September 13, 2009 at 11:24 AM